Defending the Christian faith and promoting its wisdom against the secular and religious challenges of our day.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Non-Resistance to Evil?

A group of Christian women were singing hymns on the street.
An angry passer-by struck one of the women down to the ground. The police later
asked her if she wanted to press charges. She declined, thinking that she was
being faithful to Jesus’ teaching:

·"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for
eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If
someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew
5:38-39)

This Christian woman thought it wrong to resist the “evil
person” by pressing charges. In her mind, such a response contradicted Jesus’
teaching on non-resistance. However, most of us do not take this teaching
literally. Jesus had often taught figuratively or hyperbolically - plucking out
you eye or cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, not letting your left
hand know what your right hand is doing, hating your parents, and letting the
dead bury the dead. We don’t take these teaching literally. Then, should we
take “turn the other cheek” literally?

An “eye for an eye” had been a progressive judicial
principle that required that the punishment had to be in line with the offense
(Exodus 21:23-27). Cutting off a man’s hand, if he stole a loaf of bread to
feed his family, was not justice. However, the rich and powerful consistently
appealed to an unbiblical understanding of “eye for an eye” to justify personal
revenge, as the Bible Background
Commentary explains:

·The “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” are
part of the widespread ancient Near Eastern law of retaliation. In Israel and
other cultures, this principle was enforced by a court and refers to legalized
vengeance; personal vengeance was never accepted in the law of Moses, except as
a concession for a relative’s murder (Numbers 35:18-21). The Old Testament [OT]
did not permit personal vengeance.

Even though the OT never sanctioned an “eye for an eye” for
personal revenge, it had been used for this purpose. The Jamison-Faucett-Brown
Commentary also agrees on this point:

·This law of retribution—designed to take
vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the
magistrate—was abused…this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for
taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old
Testament itself (Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29).

In light of this, Jesus’ argument wasn’t against Mosaic Law.
Instead, it was against the abuse of the Law for the purpose of revenge. Consequently,
Jesus’ teaching to “not resist an evil person” should be understood as a warning
against retaliation and not a complete non-resistance to evil. In fact, Jesus
often resisted evil. Instead of passively lying down, he proactively exposed
the hypocrisy of the religious leadership. When the High Priest asked Jesus
about His doctrine in an attempt to bring a death sentence upon Him, Jesus
resisted him:

·One of the officials nearby struck him in the
face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. If I
said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong.
But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18:22-23)

Although the leadership was trying to prove Jesus’ guilt, He
demonstrated that they were the guilty ones. Jesus was never reluctant to
highlight the hypocrisy of His detractors. Healing first requires an accurate
diagnosis of the problem. Their problem was sin, it had to be exposed in hope
that it might incline them to cry out for the only possible healing – reconciliation
with the God they had rejected.

However, Jesus didn’t follow such a teaching either.
Although He always condescended to heal the broken and humbled, He also
resisted the requests of the arrogant and hardened. He resisted the efforts of
the Jews to make Him king; He resisted when they wanted to kill Him before His
appointed time. When asked to judge, He resisted:

·Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher,
tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied,
"Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke
12:13-14)

Jesus was never pressured or coerced into doing anything in
opposition to His person or mission. Everything He did and said was done in
service to the truth. He always spoke the truth in love, although it often
contained a painful denunciation (Matthew 23). Rather than serving as an
example of non-resistance, we find that Jesus consistently resisted sin by
exposing it.

Jesus resisted Satan who tempted Him saying, "If you
are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread" (Matthew 4:3). Jesus
didn’t practice non-resistance by saying, “Whatever you say, Satan! Bread from
stones, coming up! Want it buttered?” Instead,
He stayed true to His mission:

·Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does
not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of
God.'" (Matthew 4:4)

On many occasions, Jesus resisted his own Apostles. When two
of them requested the supreme honor of reigning on either side of their
soon-to-be King, He denied their request. After Peter rebuked Jesus for
confiding that He was facing death, Jesus didn’t practice non-resistance. He
didn’t say, “Well, since you don’t want me to go to the cross, I guess I won’t.”
Instead, He sharply rebuked Peter:

·"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling
block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of
men." (Matthew 16:23)

On at least one occasion, Jesus even resorted to violence,
driving the money-changers out of the Temple
with a whip (John 2:15-17), hardly an example of non-resistance! Evidently,
Jesus was only teaching against a certain type of resistance – retaliation.

However, our atheistic mockers will retort, “Well it seems
that Jesus was teaching more than non-retaliation. He taught that we should
allow our attackers to turn us into punching bags. Isn’t that what it means to
turn the other cheek? Shouldn’t you then allow your assailant to strike your
other cheek?”

Jesus wasn’t teaching against self-defense or the defense of
your wife and children. Instead, He was speaking hyperbolically, as He often
did. Just several verses earlier, He taught:

·“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it
out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you
to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” (Matthew 5:29-30)

No one takes this teaching literally. If we did, we would all
be eyeless and handless, and this would violate a Mosaic law against mutilating
the body. Clearly, we have to take this verse figuratively. Jesus concluded:

·It is better for you to lose one part of your
body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Mat 5:30).

Therefore, if cutting you hand off could spare you from eternal
judgment, then cut off your hand. This would indeed be a very small price to
pay to escape hell. However, we all know that such surgery couldn’t possibly
save us, but if it could, we should do it.

In Matthew 5:38-42, we find a similar teaching. Jesus gives
several hypothetical situations to illuminate what He means by “Do not resist
an evil person.” In His first example He states, “If someone strikes you on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Although Jesus allowed Himself to be physically abused during
the crucifixion day, prior to that, He always avoided arrest. He never even allowed
His right cheek to be struck!

Jesus regarded the Mosaic Law as God-given. This Law never deprived
a husband of his right and duty to protect his family against assault. It is
therefore unthinkable that Jesus would deny this legal privilege by teaching
non-resistance. We therefore can’t take this teaching literally.

What then does this teaching mean? Rather than retaliating
with “eye for an eye,” Jesus seemed to be teaching that it is better to allow
yourself to be beaten than to pursue revenge, taking the law into your own
hands. It is better to go the extra mile required by the “evil man” than to
retaliate. In the same vain, He had taught that it’s better to cut off your
hand than to continue in sin. Not that you should cut your hand off or allow
yourself to be abused, but both of these unenviable outcomes were preferable to
a life of sin.

Jesus’ next example reads,

·And if someone wants to sue you and take your
tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:40)

Once again, Jesus seems to be teaching that it is better to
voluntarily surrender your cloak than to vengefully retaliate for the sake of
your tunic. This teaching certainly doesn’t mean that we should not avail
ourselves of legal means to protect our home, family or business. Allowing
ourselves to be abused for no higher cause does not glorify our Lord. It just
shows our ignorance and brings unnecessary derision down upon our heads.

Jesus’ merely taught that we shouldn’t invoke “eye for an
eye” as a justification for revenge! In fact, Paul appealed for legal
protection on many occasions. Clearly, we are not called to be doormats,
allowing our families to suffer abuse. This will not glorify the Lord nor
manifest His wisdom.

There are godly ways to resist evil, and there are ways that
are unsuitable for the Christian, as well as for others. The Christian woman,
who had been assaulted for singing hymns, did not seek revenge, but she should
have pressed charges. She at least owed that to others who this assailant might
now be emboldened to attack.

Indeed, she should pray for him and try to show him the love
and forgiveness in Christ, but she should also have resisted the “evil person”
in a legal and godly manner.